If you go to Catholic University, a private school, should you be allowed redress against having to see symbols of Catholicism? Complain? OK, everyone complains. It is part of being an American. But protection from those Catholic symbols? Of course not.
And should you, as a Muslim, be allowed redress when Christians are being persecuted in nations in the Middle East and churches are being closed (not to mention that in some nations are not allowed to exist in the first place)? Can we not impute a lack of sincerity to those seeking redress?
Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
Americans....and American society has become such a guilt ridden, neurotic society, it wouldn't surprise me to find a bunch of Catholics who support the lawsuit "on principle." In American, one is free to worship manure piles if that is their schtick and for many years (freedom of religion) but what has occurred, and I blame a tiny bunch of purely intellectual elitists, is that now MY freedom of religion means that you can't enjoy YOURS because YOURS offends ME. This is hardly freedom...and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.
As for Christians being persecuted in DOMINANTLY Muslim lands, it is terrible, it flies in the face of freedom, and for America and Americans...it is also a red herring. We have no more right to tell Iraq or Somalia what their religious practices should be than they have to come here and tell us that we can't have crucifixes in the dorm rooms of Catholic University.
But, apparently, we bristle at someone coming in and telling us what to do...but we have no real issue trying to impose our social models and norms on others.
Our exceptionalism is not a good thing when it is forced on others as an expectation. It IS a great thing when it underlies the nature and philosophy of our community within America. Its why folks want to come HERE.
There were plenty of carpetbagging freedom riders in the 60's, so objections about "going to the nuisance" are not so cut-and-dried. I also think you raise a false issue by bringing foreign conditions into the discussion. They have no relevance. They can have no relevance.
All that being said, there is a standard of harm to society not clearly met by the university symbols in their context. It's not like they're on buses going to other neighborhoods, or restricting the way others can use buses in any neighborhood.
So, I'd say, you're arguing this one incorrectly. First amendment yes. All that other nonsense, no. (No relevance about "going to the nuisance" or relation to choices made and actions by non-Americans).
Well, I have been bothered by the US Constitution stopping at the "water's edge", ever since I learned about it. But, that said, I think that the actions of other nations, shameful as they are, can not be an excuse for doing wrong in our own nation. Even the theory of retaliation doesn't really work. But, I felt a lot better for having brought up the point.
I do think that for the Federal Government to stick its oar into these waters would be an infringement of the First Amendment. I do think that this law suit is much different from the "Freedom Riders" of the 1960s. For one thing, as a single nation we have a responsibility to treat everyone equally in public accommodations. Black soldiers in WWII and after found that, if from the North (or West) they lost rights when assigned to the South and even overseas in some Jim Crow parts of the Army. This is not the same situation.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment